The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.

Philip wrote:Don't forget thtat the Avro was the ill-fated AEW platform that took not just the crew but the cream of the team working on the desi AEW aircraft.The airframe was supposedly found to be too weak for the radome in the investigation.

No it wasn't the airframe's issue. It was the fault of the brackets that held the radome in place. Those failed and the antenna hit the tailplane, causing the crash.

Indranil wrote:Answered that question a few posts above. They had an average of 80,000 hours of airframe life left in them. They are currently flying 350 hours a year.The age of the airfame is not the problem here. How long have the B-52s been flying? They are supposed to fly till 2040! Making IAF agree was a problem earlier because HAL was trying to kill the Avro replacement program with this proposal. But, this is not how it should have placed it IMHO. It is a proposal to use the aircraft to its full potential. It is a good aircraft with a good record.

The most astonishing feat of service life endurance will likely be by the KC-135 tankers in USAF service. Based on the Boeing 707 platform, there was a recent report that stated they could be kept in service till the reach the age of 100 years !!

From wiki

The Air Force projected that E and R models have lifetime flying hour limits of 36,000 and 39,000 hours, respectively. According to the Air Force, only a few KC-135s would reach these limits by 2040, when some aircraft would be about 80 years old. The Air Force estimated that their current fleet of KC-135s have between 12,000 and 14,000 flying hours on them-only 33 percent of the lifetime flying hour limit.[13]

Between 1993 and 2003, the amount of KC-135 depot maintenance work doubled, and the overhaul cost per aircraft tripled.[28] In 1996, it cost $8,400 per flight hour for the KC-135, and in 2002 this had grown to $11,000. The Air Force’s 15-year estimates project further significant cost growth through fiscal year 2017. KC-135 fleet operations and support costs are estimated to grow from about $2.2 billion in fiscal year 2003 to $5.1 billion (2003 dollars) in fiscal year 2017, an increase of over 130 percent, which represents an annual growth rate of about 6.2 percent.[29][b]In 2006, the KC-135E fleet was flying an annual average of 350 hours per aircraft and the KC-135R fleet was flying an annual average of 710 hours per aircraft. The KC-135 fleet is currently flying double its planned yearly flying hour program to meet airborne refueling requirements, and has resulted in higher than forecast usage and sustainment costs.[30] In March 2009, the Air Force indicated that KC-135s would require additional skin replacement to allow their continued use beyond 2018.[31]

As IR pointed out, the HS-748 Avros too have a lot of residual life in them, but 80,000 hours seem a bit too much. Anyhow, with 350 hours average utilization per year per HS-748, they could easily last another 20-25 years if they were given a bit of an upgrade for their avionics and engines. Then the C-295 program could be shelved for a later date. Currently there are too many other high priority projects that are awaiting funding, the C-295 certainly isn't one of those high priority projects.

shiv wrote:I am "basically" saying nothing more than indicated by the data available to both you and me.

News reports say that the IAF has released an RFI for a tanker that is "twin engine" and with "two crew" members (for cost considerations as per the reports on the previous page of this thread). You pointed out yourself that "twin engine" means the Midas is ruled out. I am saying that "twin crew" rules out any aircraft with flying boom because that requires an extra boom operator. The IAF is also apparently considering any aircraft that can be converted to tankers provided they have a 40 year life remaining. I would be surprised if the IAF deliberately asks for a flying boom to be fitted as part of the conversion process. I have seen nothing to suggest that this might happen.

I would be happy to learn about any dedicated tanker that has a boom and only 2 crew . A casual Google search threw up nothing, but please tell me if you know. Does the CRAG system reduce the crew to 2? Would that require the signing of all sorts of agreements for the fitting of US avionics of the genre that were left out from aircraft like the P-8I?

The data available on the RFI says that 2 engines only, but did it say that only 2 man crew without operator?

The top two contenders have 2 flight crew and 1 boom operator. My guess would be similar for the used 767s from IAI Bedek.

Whereas the Il-78M Midas in IAF service has either 5 or 6 crew on board and IMO, that is what the IAF is targeting as a waste of resources. Having to carry a flight engineer on board along with a navigator is one of the issues with the Il-78M Midas tanker and that is what the IAF wants to do away with. I don't think that they expect the pilots to do the refueling related work that an operator does, even in these new tankers- not even with those equipped only for probe and drogue refueling.

Even though the new Il-78M-PS90A variant would likely meet the 2 flight crew and 1 operator requirement, the 2 engine requirement rules them out.

Kartik wrote:As IR pointed out, the HS-748 Avros too have a lot of residual life in them, but 80,000 hours seem a bit too much. Anyhow, with 350 hours average utilization per year per HS-748, they could easily last another 20-25 years if they were given a bit of an upgrade for their avionics and engines. Then the C-295 program could be shelved for a later date. Currently there are too many other high priority projects that are awaiting funding, the C-295 certainly isn't one of those high priority projects.

I agree 80,000 seems high, but that is what HAL said in its RFI issued in 2013.

I hope that the C-295 project happens earlier than later. However, NOTHING is happening!

Kartik wrote:The data available on the RFI says that 2 engines only, but did it say that only 2 man crew without operator?

I will have to bow out of this bizarre semantic jugglery where one has to interpret that what has not been said can be cited as a requirement on the basis of the argument that a boom operator is not mentioned but is not "crew". This is an area where your ability to interpret the unsaid exceeds mine by an enormous margin. In this way the two engine requirement can now be interpreted as one engine and one APU because an APU is also an engine and the report does not say that two engines actually means 2 for propulsion and an APU.

One is mystified by the only 2 engine req.It should be the fuel economics of operating the engines, maintenance cycle and more importantly the overall capability of the aircraft and its cost-effectiveness in the long term ,plus initial capital cost for a cash strapped IAF.This is the wretched SEF syndrome rearing its ugly head again.The IAF wanted an MMRCA bird.It chose one,MOD haggled for years, we finally bought a measly 2 sqds for an absurd price, the IAF now wants 2 more for the same or almost the same price without the TOT package (!) and then downgrades its MMRCA req. wanting an SEF for the remaining number when the LCA is in initial series production.Simply ridiculous.

The heavy hand of firang interests can clearly be seen in this fiasco.It appears that the tanker req. is going the same way after a VVIP visit.The most cost-effective solution buying new upgraded modernised IL-478s is the answer when we havd 7 in service. Why then is the IAF upgrading all approx 16 IL-76s in the inventory and acquiring 2 more new 476s for the Phalcon AWACS? These also come at reasonable costs just half the cost of other contenders like the Airbus, etc.Commonality in platforms for the three roles when two roles operate the same platform is common sense.There will be around 27+ aircraft flying based upon the IL-76/476 platform i n the future.

The IAF will now add another (second hand?) platform which will come with all its support req. problems too.It will be a veritable avian zoo in Indian skies in the future!

What percentage of IAF flights fly into Leh in summer? Let An-32 handle the hot and high. The HS748 is good enough for the rest of the country.

Philip sir, 2 engines is more fuel efficient than 4 engines. I like the 476s. But, I don't think IAF is going for anymore of them. Not even the A-50s. By the way, have you read the latest news. IAF back out of the A-50s deal because the Russians jacked up the price of the aircraft a few folds, and so did the Israelis for integration into a "new" platform.

The next chapatis are likely to be on the A330s. It is looking increasingly likely that so will the refuelers. Unless geopolitics interferes.

That's going to be an even more expensive proposition! hard bargaining is the answer,linked to other deals in a package and a fixed timetable for a decision. One can easily negotiate with alternatives while one is bargaining with the OEMs (Ru/IZ) .Such simulataneous negotiations will spur both sides to make their minds up quickly too,well knowing that a concrete decision will be taken. When the combined figure starts getting larger,no nation would be willing to lose out.When China is building so many AWACS/AEW aircraft ,we must get our priorities right.

Low and slow role for prosecuting subs.Turboprops are best suited for this role. I think that the range/endurance of the 748s are a problem.Maybe fr CG purposes it may suffice purely in an MP role.But even here fitting a search radar,etc. modifying the aircraft won't be done in a hurry.Using it as a utility transport as long as one can is the best for now,until its replacements start arriving,supposedly the C-295 of which their is no sight on the horizon and from the state of affairs for many years to come.We will never learn."Knee-jerk decisions always".That should be the motto of the MOD and hung up in South Block at the entrance!

The IN with a combo of P-8Is and IL-38s (get a few more extras),plus backfires will be well suited to sanitise the IOR. The pic of PLAAF bombers in an exercise against Taiwan, reminds one of the myopia of the IAF too.They're caught in a timewarp of British making.Even decades ago we operated Canberra bombers. The IAF have zilch capability of any strat. bombing for China and long range attacks in the IOR. MKIs with refuelling still have payload limitations. Retiring the IN's Bears without a replacement has left a gaping hole in our LR strike capability with little sign of it being filled .

Philip wrote:One is mystified by the only 2 engine req.It should be the fuel economics of operating the engines, maintenance cycle and more importantly the overall capability of the aircraft and its cost-effectiveness in the long term ,plus initial capital cost for a cash strapped IAF.This is the wretched SEF syndrome rearing its ugly head again.The IAF wanted an MMRCA bird.It chose one,MOD haggled for years, we finally bought a measly 2 sqds for an absurd price, the IAF now wants 2 more for the same or almost the same price without the TOT package (!) and then downgrades its MMRCA req. wanting an SEF for the remaining number when the LCA is in initial series production.Simply ridiculous.

The heavy hand of firang interests can clearly be seen in this fiasco.It appears that the tanker req. is going the same way after a VVIP visit.The most cost-effective solution buying new upgraded modernised IL-478s is the answer when we havd 7 in service. Why then is the IAF upgrading all approx 16 IL-76s in the inventory and acquiring 2 more new 476s for the Phalcon AWACS? These also come at reasonable costs just half the cost of other contenders like the Airbus, etc.Commonality in platforms for the three roles when two roles operate the same platform is common sense.There will be around 27+ aircraft flying based upon the IL-76/476 platform i n the future.

The IAF will now add another (second hand?) platform which will come with all its support req. problems too.It will be a veritable avian zoo in Indian skies in the future!

Just 2 engines !!!!! HOW DARE THEY NOT INCLUDE THE IL 78, THE BEST AERIAL REFUELLING AIRCRAFT IN THE WORLD

Strictly,this should be in the UAV/UCAV td. but as it impinges in the overall asset list of the IAF,etc., posted here.The pity is that we started way before the Chins and others,over 2 decades ago,but have made such pathetic progress in desi drone types in comparison to the rest of the world.

Loosening of US arms sales spurs India to challenge ChinaWednesday, January 31, 2018By: GLOBAL Times As the US moves closer toward the possibility that it will loosen restrictions on foreign arms sales, India is looking closely.

The Donald Trump administration is considering relaxing arms sales restrictions, including reviewing export policies on unmanned weapon systems, in order to regain dominance in the market, in an initiative that could be launched as early as February, Reuters reported. Analysts have said that if the policy is relaxed, a large beneficiary will be India.

A recent opinion piece in the Hindu newspaper pointed out that if Trump "emphasizes the commercial benefits of arms sales and de-emphasizes the strategic angle, it could lead to a change in the dynamics of India-US defense trade, and bilateral trade in general. India, always wary of military alliances, will be more comfortable with weapons purchases as commercial deals."

If the US chooses to make its Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) available, the overall situation is worth pondering, experts say. "Recently, relations between US and India have been warming up and the US hopes India can become an important force in the South Asia region in containing China. So the increase in India's military ability is something the US wants to see," Wang Ya'nan, chief editor of Aerospace Knowledge magazine, told the Global Times.

Timing to loosen up sales ::

In recent months, Trump has stressed the "Indo-Pacific" strategy, which first emerged last year when Rex Tillerson, US Secretary of State, gave a speech praising India and accusing China of "undermining the international rules-based order" and undertaking "provocative actions" in the South China Sea. Analysts have said the strategy sets the tone to counter China.

This decision for the US to review export policies is also spurred by the growth in sales of UAVs from other countries including China. In an article titled "Unable to buy US military drones, allies place orders with China" last July, the Wall Street Journal explained that several countries in the Middle East and Africa have deployed weapons bought from China. According to satellite photos, drones such as CH-4 (Rainbow-4) and Wing Loong I started appearing in foreign militaries.

Meanwhile, US export policy self-restricts its performance in the global market. The US is part of the Missile Technology Control Regime, an informal and voluntary partnership among 35 countries that seeks to limit the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction by controlling exports of goods and technologies that could make a contribution to delivery systems for such weapons.

In this context, the Regime places particular focus on rockets and UAVs capable of delivering a payload of at least 500 kilograms to a range of at least 300 kilometers, as well as on equipment, software and technology for such systems.

Furthermore, commentators have said the US is also afraid that general sales of UAVs will mean that other countries may possess its high-end technology. Correspondingly, US export policy has been relatively restrictive on the export of drones, as both military and civilian drones are only sold to close allies such as the UK, Japan and South Korea.

It is written in the policy of the US Department of State's Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, which oversees most government-to-government arms transfers and the commercial export licensing of US-origin defense equipment and technologies, that each proposed transfer is carefully assessed on a case-by-case basis. Approval is only granted if found to further American foreign policy and its own national security interests. In addition, major defense transfers and sales may be subject to US Congressional notification

India purchase causes concerns ::

India's need to purchase UAVs is spurred by concerns about regional power balance. Currently, India has a large fleet of drones mainly with reconnaissance purposes. The Indian military has been craving bigger strike-capable drones, mainly from the US and Israel.

Wang said India has goals when it comes to purchasing UAVs, as it hopes for high-level equipment, a characteristic of its recent national defense development. Media reported that satellite images along with other reports suggest that Pakistan may be operating a China-made strike-capable, multi-role Wing Loong I drone, capable of carrying out complex assault operations. This may have alerted officials in New Delhi for the urgent need to acquire heavier armed drones as a deterrent.

"We have already taken notice of these reports. Be rest assured that necessary measures are being taken at the right places," a top Indian military official told the Asian Age.

Correspondingly, India's purchase of drones, especially from the US, has been alarming to neighboring countries. Last June, the US State Department approved the sale of 22 General Atomics MQ-9B Sea Guardians to India, which caused Pakistan to express concern, saying it would result in strategic imbalance in the region.

Last August, General Atomics president David Alexander told reporters that the company was engaged with an unnamed foreign nation in the purchase of potential Avenger drones (formerly Predator C), which are unmanned combat aerial vehicles powered by turbofan engines and include stealth features. The Indian Defense News identified the unnamed country as India.

"If India employs drones for military missions, it no doubt is concerned with China," Wang said. "If India has medium-high altitude long-endurance UAVs, it most possibly will use them at the Sino-Indian border, as well as for securing the Indian Ocean. The key issue is, if the US loosens up its exports, which type of UAV will it sell to India?"

Last December, the Chinese foreign ministry condemned India for invading Chinese airspace with a drone after the drone crashed on the Chinese side of the border. India argued that the incident was caused by a technical problem while China said it infringed on its territorial sovereignty. Foreign ministry spokesperson Geng Shuang called on India to "stop the [drone] activities" near the border.

"The action of the Indian side violated China's territory and is not conducive to peace and tranquility in the border area," he said in a press conference.China's reliable technology ::

Even though India's purchase is highly likely on agenda after the US loosens up sales, there is no need for China to be alarmed every time India makes a purchase, Wang said, as the Chinese military has its own long-term development agenda, including development of drones, he said.

Purchasing a few pieces of equipment also does not mean these can fit in well with India's overall military system.

"With all this equipment coming from different countries, in order to incorporate them into one combat system, there needs to be overall integration on communications and security of data link, which is difficult for India. The US may export excellent equipment but it may not help India with a military upgrade," Wang said.

On the other hand, China has more confidence with its rapid development of drones in recent years. The CH-5 (Rainbow-5) drone, which debuted on the 11th Zhuhai Airshow in November 2016, is China's largest drone for reconnaissance, surveillance, patrols, target positioning and strike missions.

The CH-5 is the latest unmanned combat aerial vehicle of the Rainbow series. Twice as big as its predecessors in the Rainbow series, the CH-5 can stay in the air for 60 hours and fly at an altitude of up to 10 kilometers. It has a maximum range of 10,000 kilometers carrying normal payloads, and is able to carry 16 air-to-surface missiles.

Shi Wen, chief engineer of the Rainbow drones, told the Global Times previously that even compared with its principal competitor, the US General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper (Predator , a hunter-killer drone, the CH-5 still has an advantage with its long flight duration and massive payload. The US MQ-9 can only operate for 14 to 15 hours and carry six missiles.

Chinese arms are "gaining international influence with skilled and reliable technology," Shi said, noting that the price factor only plays a minor role. Traditionally, the world's arms market was dominated by the US, Europe and Russia. As a latecomer, China has grown rapidly in recent years. The Rainbow series, for example, has been exported to more than 10 countries in recent years and has been tested in actual combat.

"Some remaining work China needs to do include defense, such as accurate UAV survey and recognition; they are all in the works right now," Wang said.

Ilyushin aircraft company developing new transport plane for Russia’s Defense Ministry"Today, on January 25, the flight model of the Il-78M-90A perspective aerial refueling plane performed its first flight. The plane was piloted by Ilyushin Chief Pilot, Hero of Russia, Merited Test Pilot of Russia Nikolai Kuimov," the company said in a statement.

Vice-President of the United Aircraft Corporation and CEO of the Ilyushin Aircraft Company Alexei Rogozin said that some foreign partners were showing interest in the latest aerial refueling tanker.

"Today the upgraded Il-78M-90A aerial tanker performed its first flight, which lasted 35 minutes. The new plane differs from its predecessor by its modified wing, new engines and the control system, and also has a large lifting capacity and a big volume of fuel carried aboard. The plane has been developed for Russia’s Aerospace Force but some of our foreign partners are also showing interest in the tanker," Rogozin said.

New aerial refueling tankerRussia’s improved aerial refueler modification is derived from the latest Il-76MD-90A military transport plane while its designing, the development of design documentation and its production were carried out using modern digital technologies.

The perspective aerial refueling plane boasts an increased flight range thanks to its four PS-90A-76 new-generation engines and can take a larger amount of fuel on its board for aircraft refueling compared to previous models. These engines consume 12-14% less fuel than D-30KP motors mounted on earlier modifications of aerial fueling tankers.

Besides, the latest refueler features a completely new aircraft navigation system and also an all-glass cockpit, which helps reduce the crew workload and enhance flight safety.

The aircraft is furnished with three hose and drogue air refueling pods: two units on the outer wings and one on the right side of the rear fuselage. The Il-78M-90A will be capable of refueling two frontline aviation planes at a time. The tail unit allows refueling long-range and special aviation aircraft. On the ground, the Il-78M-90A can simultaneously refuel four planes.

"The latest Il-78M-90A aerial refueling tanker has retained its capability as a military transport plane. Re-equipping won’t require a large volume of work and can be carried in aerodrome conditions. If necessary, fire-fighting equipment can be mounted on it," the company said.

First Russia-assembled Il-78 planeThe Ilyushin Aircraft Company is the principal developer of the new aerial refueling tanker while its producer is Aviastar-SP enterprise.

Serial-produced aerial refueling tankers will be assembled at the Ulyanovsk-based Aviastar-SP where work is currently underway to install a final assembly line for Il-76MD-90A heavy military transport planes and Il-78M-90A refuelers.

The new plane will be the first aerial refueling tanker produced in Russia. Before that, all Il-78 aircraft were assembled in Uzbekistan

Philip wrote:One is mystified by the only 2 engine req.It should be the fuel economics of operating the engines, maintenance cycle and more importantly the overall capability of the aircraft and its cost-effectiveness in the long term ,plus initial capital cost for a cash strapped IAF.This is the wretched SEF syndrome rearing its ugly head again.The IAF wanted an MMRCA bird.It chose one,MOD haggled for years, we finally bought a measly 2 sqds for an absurd price, the IAF now wants 2 more for the same or almost the same price without the TOT package (!) and then downgrades its MMRCA req. wanting an SEF for the remaining number when the LCA is in initial series production.Simply ridiculous.

The heavy hand of firang interests can clearly be seen in this fiasco.It appears that the tanker req. is going the same way after a VVIP visit.The most cost-effective solution buying new upgraded modernised IL-478s is the answer when we havd 7 in service. Why then is the IAF upgrading all approx 16 IL-76s in the inventory and acquiring 2 more new 476s for the Phalcon AWACS? These also come at reasonable costs just half the cost of other contenders like the Airbus, etc.Commonality in platforms for the three roles when two roles operate the same platform is common sense.There will be around 27+ aircraft flying based upon the IL-76/476 platform i n the future.

The IAF will now add another (second hand?) platform which will come with all its support req. problems too.It will be a veritable avian zoo in Indian skies in the future!

4 engines = more maintenance than 2 engines4 engines = more likelihood of being grounded due to issues with any 1 engine

There is a reason why most civilian airlines are moving away from 4 engined jets. Their economics don't work in the current era, where the reliability of modern turbofan engines is extremely high and 2 is good enough. Especially considering that these other tankers are based on civilian jets that are very widely used in both the civilian and freight industry and have much easier availability of parts and MRO facilities worldwide. Basically, they'll be a little costlier to operate but will be available for the IAF when needed and for any military arm, that is a good thing when money to acquire them isn't the primary and biggest concern.

this is NOT firang interests that is driving the request for 2 engined tankers. If the Ilyushin 76 based Il-78M fleet was very reliable and had lower crew numbers and high availability, the IAF would have had no reason to basically exclude it from the contest.

The difference is there for everyone to see. the P-8I, C-130J and C-17 fleet are not in the news for reasons of poor serviceability or availability. Quite to the contrary.

Kartik wrote:The data available on the RFI says that 2 engines only, but did it say that only 2 man crew without operator?

I will have to bow out of this bizarre semantic jugglery where one has to interpret that what has not been said can be cited as a requirement on the basis of the argument that a boom operator is not mentioned but is not "crew". This is an area where your ability to interpret the unsaid exceeds mine by an enormous margin. In this way the two engine requirement can now be interpreted as one engine and one APU because an APU is also an engine and the report does not say that two engines actually means 2 for propulsion and an APU.

You call it semantic jugglery, I call it making sense of some media report. Important when responding to claims of tankers with just 2 crew. I don't know of any that has the pilots operating the other equipment on board the airplane for refueling in-flight. Because both crew are meant to be flying the jet, not looking to see that refueling equipment is working correctly.

I won't respond to the rest of the stuff you've written. Not worth responding to.

Codenamed SWiFT, short for stealth wing flying testbed, the aircraft is a technology demonstrator being designed and built in collaboration with the Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE), a government military laboratory in Bengaluru. While the white model is used as a shaping test platform, the black fabricated metal clone of the SWiFT undergoes wind tunnel testing at IIT-K’s in-house facility. And no, these models aren’t just for show.

Top sources associated with the project have confirmed to Livefist that by the end of this year, a prototype SWiFT will be fitted with a Russian NPO Saturn 36MT turbofan engine (which currently powers the Nirbhay cruise missile) and launched on its first flight during the 2018-19 financial year.

The research project at IIT-K is to receive at least $8 million towards proving the contours of the SWiFT. But this little aircraft being finetuned and tested by the aeronautical research task force at IIT-K, is essentially a miniaturised model of something much larger. When it enters flight testing before March next year, the SWiFT will begin proving technologies and parameters for an unmanned weaponised aircraft approximately eight times its size.

“Nobody will share the technologies that go into Ghatak. And that’s the reason why we have committed to building every piece of technology that will make this a proven stealth unmanned combat aircraft,” Christopher told your correspondent in a phone interview from Bengaluru, where has just met with the project leadership. “Whatever beating we have got so far will be nullified. The day when technologies are denied, I can say I have my own.”

While the SWiFT gets set for a first flight in a year, the bigger Ghatak is still a way off, with a first flight near impossible before 2024-25.

“We are in the process of making the 1:1 model so that we can prove our RCS reduction capability via shaping and materials. We’ve got five labs working on the material side, while the airframe is completed by ADA. And that is what we are physically making because shape is most important. Shaping is 70 per cent of the signature reduction process. We’ve got an Outdoor Radar Cross Section Test Measurement facility (ORANGE) in Hyderabad which will test the model,” Dr. Christopher said.

“We are almost at a final understanding with the IAF that we will use the Kaveri dry engine (i.e. non-afterburning). In the Kaveri that we have, we weren’t getting the power that we wanted. It started out with started with 80 kN and then 90 then 98 kNs. In a dry version for Ghatak, even 50 kN will be more than sufficient. We will be finalising that very shortly,” Dr. Christopher said.

So confident is the DRDO chief in his timelines, he hopes for his team to begin engaging the Indian Air Force in a conversation about orders in 2020. A senior IAF officer at the Air Headquarters told Livefist that the Ghatak was “very much in our perspective plans” and that “we are looking forward to discussing our support and taking forward the necessary requirements“.

“The project is fully positioned as a futurustic platform. It draws very little from any existing technologies in the country,” an IIT-K student associated with the project told Livefist. “Everything we’re doing here is fundamental. And that is why it is so important.”

This story is more important than Ghatak. We are training students who can design and build Ghataks. Students who know that they are part of fundamental research of something very importnat. It touched me at a personal level and I will share my thoughts.

My father is an IITK alumnus. I often tell him, it is no longer the same in the IITs. The most sought after department these days is the placement cell. The most sought after companies are financial companies. I had proposed once to the professors that a placement opportunity be offered right after first year. Let the non-core industry come and hire from the students who want to join them. It is mutually beneficial for all. The companies get what they want. The guys get what they want and the institute can focus its energy to train the guys who really want to serve their field for the remaining 3 years. Obviously, it was not well received . I was told that people join IITs for passion of a subject. I replied that while this was true for 2-3% of the students, the remaining join according to their rank and the trend. If it were to be passion, the choices would have been random. I was obviously not very popular after that .

But this latest story warms my heart. Three cheers to the lab and its students. I hope you make more trips to the late night canteen. The Maggi and the egg bhurji taste awesome at that time. Build more memories and build more planes. You will never get these 4 years back.

The maggi and egg bhurji is overrated. Those hostel canteens are so unhygenic by any standard ... a cult.fit or freshmenu type delivery service 24x7 to rooms would probably run them out of business .. ratty plastic chairs, ratty tv, a layer of grease, a bunch of night owls roaming around .. meh meh

Great story this especially that lead in work is happening at IITK. Hope that the ones who are doing this work stay here, if not at all, at least the few.

This is great template for military tech development. Biggest and most fundamental of US defense programs have been associated with their universities - Stanford, Caltech, MIT etc.

If Swift has to fly the next financial year (2018-19), the fabrication should be starting anytime now. Kaveri in its dry configuration is already there. UAV control tech are getting proven on Rustom II. We may have the Ghatak ready before 2024.

Like Dr Chris's comment "The day when technologies are denied, I can say I have my own". That is the ISRO effect if I may say so.

But the path ahead is also the most difficult. Building an unmanned stealth bomber will require the DRDO and its associated agencies to pull hard and away from other UCAV imaginations, variously including stated plans to unman the LCA Tejas itself, the intention to arm India’s Rustom/Tapas long endurance surveillance drone that’s currently in flight test, and, most recently, the push for Predator C/Avenger armed drones from the United States.

Who ever is advising this, not a good one, suggesting no need for drone strikes until Ghatav comes online? hopefully project Cheetah is progressing well.

The naval Tejas should be going the unmanned route ... rather than wake up to the requirement a decade later

Good to hear about the subscale prototype powered by the cruise missile engine. Was going to post a rant earlier about trying to build a full scale operational weapon in the very first go whereas even the US doesn't have one after having built at least half a dozen flying wing stealth UAV/UCAV prototypes.

The long term effort must be to possess a stealth bomber manned or unmanned.A large long endurance UCAV would be a good complement to the stealth bomber.But it must be large enough to carry internally a meaningful payload of stand-off ASMs of at least 300-400 km.

But inability to make it completely invisible will allow someone to make 4+++ type comments and hold it back to help a foreign buy. A different govt will use this to fill it's pockets. It has happened far too often. Just saying.

Totally OT...but posting here so that it can get a little bit more eyeballs. Hoping that Deejar saar with his practical experience could answer this or individuals like IR & JayS who have better aerodynamics knowledge than I do!

Kartik wrote:The data available on the RFI says that 2 engines only, but did it say that only 2 man crew without operator?

shiv wrote:I will have to bow out of this bizarre semantic jugglery where one has to interpret that what has not been said can be cited as a requirement on the basis of the argument that a boom operator is not mentioned but is not "crew". This is an area where your ability to interpret the unsaid exceeds mine by an enormous margin.

Kartik wrote:You call it semantic jugglery, I call it making sense of some media report. Important when responding to claims of tankers with just 2 crew. I don't know of any that has the pilots operating the other equipment on board the airplane for refueling in-flight. Because both crew are meant to be flying the jet, not looking to see that refueling equipment is working correctly.

You're correct. The RFI says "Two crew cockpit configuration" & "Requirement of 3rd member (crew) for Air to Air refuelling role to be specified".

Also, asks the vendors to specify number of refueling stations as well as "Type of aerial refueling", opening the door for multiple types of aerial refueling.

The point is we operate 7 IL-78s being upgraded like all 16+ 76s with new fuel-efficient engines, glass cockpits, extra range and payload, etc.apart from the AWACS platforms.For commonality and cost effectiveness it makes sense to buy more of a type in service.If it was a brand new type/acquisition no problem, cast the net wide.Costwise too just compare the huge difference.

When we have a limited defence budget that despite the increasing threats and regional instability, we cannot spend like billionaires when we are merely millionaires.

Philip wrote:The point is we operate 7 IL-78s being upgraded like all 16+ 76s with new fuel-efficient engines, glass cockpits, extra range and payload, etc.apart from the AWACS platforms.For commonality and cost effectiveness it makes sense to buy more of a type in service.If it was a brand new type/acquisition no problem, cast the net wide.Costwise too just compare the huge difference.

The two engine requirement has been drafted in with the express purpose of excluding the Il-78. The IAF which is quite aware of the existence of the new gen Il-76 platform wants nothing to do with it.

When we have a limited defence budget that despite the increasing threats and regional instability, we cannot spend like billionaires when we are merely millionaires.

Hence in the inclusion of refurbished platforms in the fray. The KC-46 is likely to be the only new-build aircraft on offer. The Airbus & IAI pitches will almost certainly involve used aircraft.

Converting used airliners for air-refueling roles is the the best way to build capability at a low cost and having all future maintenance issues in our control. And cost efficient way to have a big fleet.

It is telling that the IAF would rather have used Airbus or Boeing aircraft than new build IL-76. They wouldn't do this unless they were thoroughly dissatisfied with the spares, availability and maintenance issues with their existing IL-76 aircraft. Makes me wonder how many of our IL-78 tankers would be actually usable if a conflict were to begin tomorrow.

State-run Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) on Wednesday flew advanced jet trainer (AJT) Hawk-i here for the first time with an avionics system it developed, said the defence behemoth.

"The AJT, being built by HAL under licence from British BAE Systems, was flown for the first time with home-grown avionics software, including real-time operating system," a company official told IANS.

"The real-time operating system is a key technology for executing multiple applications and optimal use of hardware in modern avionics software," said HAL Chairman T. Suvarna Raju in a statement on the occasion.

Military aviation regulator Cemilac certified the system for using in the Indian version of the Hawks, flown by the Indian Air Force pilots trained to fly fighter jets in its combat fleet.

The avionics network stack and file system were co-developed with the Indian Institute of Technology-Kharagpur in West Bengal.

"Avionics systems are developed using imported real-time operating systems used in civilian aircraft. They are costly and have limited flexibility to add new features or use them on new hardware platforms," said the statement.

As the imported software is prone to cyberattacks, which compromise the safety and security of the avionics system, HAL designed and developed the operating system for safety- and mission-critical applications.

"The system's performance has been validated on the mission computer of the indigenous Hawk.

The flight programme, which includes real-time sensor data processing, navigation algorithm computations, controls and display management was able to meet its design requirements during the flight," added the statement.

The tandem-seat aircraft is used for ground attack, flying and weapons training at supersonic speed. Powered by Adour Mk 871 turbofan engine, it is also used for aerobatic manoeuvres.

The point is "existing" aicraft which are two+ decades old! Try maintaining your old car after 20 years,when it is no longer built (in Uzbekistan).Incidentally,even these legacy Il-76s have along with the Sov. era AN-32s never had an major accidents,barring two AN-32s which disappered somewhere in the Arabian Sea on their delivery run from Russia which may have collided with each othe,and another more recent;ly which disappeared in the Bay of Bengal en route to the ANC r.They took the IAF to the west supportingr various exercises,used in Op. Cactus in the Maldives during RG's time,and extensively in the SL/IPKF ops. If the IAF is so p*ssed off with these aircraft why is the entire stock of IL-76 platforms being upgraded to Il-476 std.? It is because it is a rugged ,very dependable platform that has proven itself over decades.

We are talking now of brand new aircraft,built entirely in Russia,with deep modernisation,new engines,etc.,etc.,that come in far cheaper than their western rivals.Moreover,latest Indo-Ru news emphasises extensive after-sales service planned for all Ru eqpt. already bought and in the pipeline to allay any fears of support later on. In the case of MKIs,it has already gone up a lot.The new I:L-476 platforms should at least also been considered for the future tanker and other similar reqs. ,but the western lobby is scared because they can't compete on cost,why a joint US-Indo thinktank actually advocated India dropping its "lowest cost" policy and buy US eqpt.,the most expensive because they can't even compete with Europe.

Philip wrote:Sov. era AN-32s never had an major accidents,barring two AN-32s which disappered somewhere in the Arabian Sea on their delivery run from Russia which may have collided with each othe,and another more recent;ly which disappeared in the Bay of Bengal en route to the ANC

Aren't the first and second part of the sentences contradictory?

How are the planes safe, especially since wreckage are often never found.

The An-32 being delivered were flying on separate days, so no chance of collision.

NEW DELHI — A sophisticated transport plane that India bought from the Soviet Union disappeared on its way to India and is feared to have crashed, a Defense Ministry spokesman said today. It was the second Soviet-built Antonov-32 purchased by the Indian air force to disappear in flight in less than a week.